Texas Could Get a 205-MPH Bullet Train Zipping Between Houston and Dallas (popsci.com) 229
Amtrak and a company called Texas Central announced a partnership on Wednesday to connect Houston and Dallas by train, spanning roughly 240 miles at speeds upwards of 205 mph. Popular Science reports: According to Quartz, the applications have already been submitted to "several federal grant programs" to help finance research and design costs. Amtrak representatives estimate the project could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by over 100,000 tons annually and remove an estimated 12,500 cars per day from the region's I-45 corridor. The reduction in individual vehicles on the roads could also save as much as 65 million gallons of fuel each year.
The trains traveling Amtrak's Dallas-Houston route would be based on Japan's updated N700S Series Shinkansen "bullet train," a design that first debuted in 2020. "This high-speed train, using advanced, proven Shinkansen technology, has the opportunity to revolutionize rail travel in the southern US," Texas Central CEO Michael Bui said via the August 9 announcement.
American city planners have been drawn to the idea of high-speed railways for decades, but have repeatedly fallen short of getting them truly on track due to a host of issues, including funding, political pushback, and cultural hurdles. That said, 85 percent of recently surveyed travelers between Dallas and the greater North Texas area indicated they would ride such a form of transportation "in the right circumstances." If so, as many as 6 million travelers could be expected to ride the train by the end of the decade, with the number rising to 13 million by 2050.
The trains traveling Amtrak's Dallas-Houston route would be based on Japan's updated N700S Series Shinkansen "bullet train," a design that first debuted in 2020. "This high-speed train, using advanced, proven Shinkansen technology, has the opportunity to revolutionize rail travel in the southern US," Texas Central CEO Michael Bui said via the August 9 announcement.
American city planners have been drawn to the idea of high-speed railways for decades, but have repeatedly fallen short of getting them truly on track due to a host of issues, including funding, political pushback, and cultural hurdles. That said, 85 percent of recently surveyed travelers between Dallas and the greater North Texas area indicated they would ride such a form of transportation "in the right circumstances." If so, as many as 6 million travelers could be expected to ride the train by the end of the decade, with the number rising to 13 million by 2050.
Key to success (Score:5, Insightful)
Ok so in all seriousness they need to look at what California did, and do the opposite. For starters, make the destinations somewhere important in the actual city, not "train to nowhere" like in Cal. The "the plebes will happily take the train to Modesto because of the carbon footprint it saves" approach will not actually sell train tickets. Connect to football stadiums and it will probably be profitable once the logo rights are sold, before passengers even start riding. Onboard Longhorn network or ESPN pay-per-view or something would probably help.
Next, hire actual transportation experts to do the planning, not politician's friends who line up at the trough to start chomping on political doleouts. And when people bring up objections and problems, try to resolve it instead of just bulldozing over them. (And then when the project implodes, go around saying it was the fault of all those naysayers, and oh yeah also they were kinda right about all the problems, but it was their fault for not convincing us they were on our side)
Lets see did I miss anything? Oh yeah, don't spend money until you meet the conditions for spending that money, there will be less political favors to call in to keep the legal sharks at bay.
ps, 205mph? Setting the bar a little low aren't we?
Re:Key to success (Score:5, Insightful)
I have more chance of going to the moon than Texas spending many billions of dollars on high speed Train Travel
In much of the rest of the world High Speed Trains go direct from city centre to city centre to cut down the last mile problem as much as possible plus when you get there you have onward travel options like train, bus, tram, taxi or even car depending on how far you need to go. The US rarely has anything but car and distances once you get off the train are often considerably further.
And you still have to get Americans out of their cars to take the train which seems to have very negative connotations in the US.
The weather problem (Score:3, Informative)
If I arrive at the airport, I have no problem justifying a taxi to my office / hotel. If I arrive at a centrally located train station I may still have a last mile to travel. I'm a indoors person, so even 10 minutes outside is unattractive, especially given the USA's horrible climate...
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The USA is a big country with a huge range of climates.
Re: (Score:3)
The USA is a big country with a huge range of climates.
The climate in Houston and Dallas are both pretty terrible about 9 months out of the year. What I'd really like to see is a monorail system for commuting around Houston. We have a train but it only services around 22 miles of the downtown area out of the 500 sq miles or so of the city/greater metro area. An above ground version of the NYC subway system would be amazing here since traffic is typically terrible and the weather is too awful to walk in most of the time.
Re: (Score:2)
Monorail systems are fantastic at wasting taxpayer dollars ($140M - $200M per mile) and still require the use of eminent domain for the same acquisition of right-of-way that less expensive "light rail" options require at $25M - $45M per mile.
Usually you want to use surface rail options to save money over subway tunneling. Even the Atlanta I-20 rail project which basically uses subway trains and tracks but without the tunnel (instead using right-of-way down the freeway median) came up to $170M per mile, and
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not super optimistic about Americans embracing mass transit but you have to start somewhere. Have a HSR terminal downtown and you can start building out a tram/bus network out from the hub.
Trains do seem to work pretty well where I've tried them - Portland-Seattle and NYC-DC. But those are also the most "city" cities in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Airports have their own issues. Without a ride to and fro, you need transportation to get there. If you start the trip in your car, now you must pay to park the thing and it isn't a one time fee, you pay for every day. Then there is the sardine trip where you get packed into a tin can with others...and possibly the idiot next to you who insists on carrying on a conversation with you so that all the zephyrs in his/her brain get properly aired out.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't most people just Uber to/from the airport, or maybe have someone they know pickup/drop off these days?
I can't remember the last time I drove myself to the airport...had to be at least a couple decades ago.
A couple of Uber rides are cheaper than paying for long term parking for the most part...so, why bother?
Re: (Score:2)
I use public transport because a taxi from the airport often costs more than the flight and fuck that. Sometimes longer too if the traffic is bad.
Re: (Score:2)
I take it you do not live in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I don't :) I do visit frequently though. Used subway from JFK and a bus/PATH from EWR, light rail(?) in Seattle recently.
Re: (Score:2)
A couple of Uber rides are cheaper than paying for long term parking for the most part...so, why bother?
You would think so, but often these days you would be wrong. A rideshare from my house to the airport is basically $50 each way - and it's not like I live miles out of town, I'm 10 minutes by car from standing at the base of high-rise downtown skyscrapers.
I can park at the airport in one of the economy lots for $7.50 a day - that's 13 days of parking that would still cost less than the rideshare route.
Luckily I have a third option, as there is a light rail line that goes right to the airport terminal, and
Re: (Score:2)
Now only if there was some kind of mass-transit solution to the "we built the airport a few miles from the city center" problem, such as building out a mass transit station that terminates right there at the airport, outside the baggage claim.
Basically any city that is pretending to actually care about city planning that isn't completely centered around the automobile is doing this or already has. The odd exception being New York - why is it such a pain in the ass to get to either LaGuardia or JFK on the s
Re: (Score:3)
> I rather spend 1 hour flying from San Antonio to either city than 4-5 hours.
To be clear, starting from San Antonio city center, it takes you 1 hour to get to the airport, check in, go through security, fly, land, taxi, leave the airport, and get to Houston city center, all in 60 minutes?
Re: (Score:2)
2) The clientele. No security and cheaper transit also means different clientele. At the airport I am not looking over my shoulder or breathing in second hand smoke (even though no smoking was allowed). I took the bus once and my son took the bus several times and it was always very sketchy. The bus was nice, but the bus station was a crime waiting to happen.
Yes, true, the clientele on the bus is much better.
Re:Key to success (Score:4, Insightful)
Just like roadways, rail is rigid. Once it's created, everyone is locked in and continue to use it even when it is no longer viable..
Re:Key to success (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh, I'm sure then can spend the money. Actually building anything is a different story.
Re:Key to success (Score:5, Informative)
I have more chance of going to the moon than Texas spending many billions of dollars on high speed Train Travel
Yeah, but there's "several federal grant programs" to help finance research and design costs.
I think we know where this is headed.
Re: (Score:2)
It's interesting how some countries have lost the ability to build infrastructure. The UK is another one, been trying to build HSR for decades.
Re: (Score:2)
It's interesting how some countries have lost the ability to build infrastructure. The UK is another one, been trying to build HSR for decades.
Decades? There's a train between St Pancras (UK) and Paris that would like to have a word with you.
Re: Key to success (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How long as HS2 been in the works?
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, Britain used to thrive on the idea of "progress" back in the Victorian era. Nothing was more important than building the latest railway, bridge, and ship. In 2023, Britain largely follows US cultural trends, and the general public has little interest in large-scale engineering projects. HS2 is likely to be the only such project this century, and it is seen as an unpopular waste of money by many.
It's not a lack of ability, it's a lack of will.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Most train stations are not in city centers, not even in Europe unless the city is very young. Older cities all drop you off at the city's edges, because the city center is occupied with ancient buildings and does not have the necessary infrastructure to support a train station, let alone a high speed train (which only goes to airports and large stations near select cities).
There is no New York City or Los Angeles style city in the EU, most cities can be walked through in a day, even Brussels (12 sq. miles)
Re:Key to success (Score:4, Insightful)
I had no idea that Paris [goo.gl], Brussels [goo.gl], Munich [goo.gl], Berlin [goo.gl], Vienna [goo.gl], and Prague [goo.gl] are "very young" cities.
Don't confuse American urban sprawl and complete disdain for rail for anything but what it is. Europe chose not to sprawl across the countryside like New York or Los Angeles, much the way some American cities made the same decision to build density instead of area.
Re:Key to success (Score:4, Informative)
Most train stations are not in city centers, not even in Europe unless the city is very young. Older cities all drop you off at the city's edges, because the city center is occupied with ancient buildings and does not have the necessary infrastructure to support a train station, let alone a high speed train (which only goes to airports and large stations near select cities).
Uhh I mean obviously there aren't usually train stations right in the medieval squares but they're usually pretty close. I think it would be accurate to say they're on the edge of the old city districts.
Prague: https://www.google.com/maps/@5... [google.com]
Vienna: https://www.google.com/maps/@4... [google.com]
Frankfurt: https://www.google.com/maps/@5... [google.com]
Rome: https://www.google.com/maps/@4... [google.com]
I think Rome would be the farthest at around 2km but mostly this is still within walking distance or a few stops on the local transport. Prague is like 600m from the old town center.
The biggest difference though is that the cities aren't as sprawling and have functional local public transport, so you can get around no matter where you're going.
Re: (Score:2)
In cities with established train systems they are heavily used, look at Boston and NYC. The problem is so few places have large train systems like these that can get you within a mile of your destination.
Re:Key to success (Score:4)
My biggest problem with this is that it's Texas. Even if you go from center to center, then what???
Both of those cites are pedestrian and mass-transit unfriendly. Once you're there you're going to need a car to get ANYWHERE.
I can see the high-speed rail idea from LA to Vegas. There at least you land on the strip. I can see it on the Boston to NYC other East Coast cities.
But Texas? No. Especially as climate worsens and Texas overheats such that no one dares to go outside...
Re:Key to success (Score:5, Informative)
As long as we're dreaming...
Before they spend a penny on HSR, if the new line is going to use any existing right-of-way, make sure the existing line is fully grade-separated and electrified first.
I have repeatedly posted on this issue in other forums. California's HSR has blood on it hands. Caltrain in the Bay Area has been killing at grade crossings while they fiddle. Yes, some of them have been suicides that would have found another way; but others have been merely impatient and while we can fully blame them I don't think the penalty for impatience should be immediate death. Finally, one young man who was distracted by headphones stands out in my mind--just 18, temporarily lost awareness, dead. Don't think it could happen to you? Think again.
Grade crossings kill. Plain and simple. Grade should have been separated years ago, and wasn't. Grade separation is a prerequisite for HSR anyway, and would have been money well spent even if the whole project was never completed.
Now here we are with neither grade separation nor HSR.
Yes, Texas. Do the opposite. Boy howdy, the most opposite you can on this one.
Re: (Score:3)
All of the dedicated HSR segments currently under construction are fully grade separated.
On the Caltrain corridor where the bullet train shares tracks with regular trains, it will slow down to 125 mph at grade crossings that have an "impenetrable barrier" that blocks highway traffic when train approaches. And they will slow down further to 110 mph at regular grade crossings, if those still exist.
...or it might keep unsafe drivers off the road (Score:3)
Finally, one young man who was distracted by headphones stands out in my mind--just 18, temporarily lost awareness, dead.
Anytime you are distracted while driving can lead to deaths and often that includes the deaths of innocent others when you collide with them. At least with a train, the inattentive driver is unlikely to claim any other victims.
Suppose the examples of impatience and inattentiveness had happened at some traffic lights instead? You'd now be looking at the deaths of innocents as well as the idiot driver. Removing level crossings will not change the fact that the penalty for extreme impatience or inattentive
Re: (Score:2)
For car drivers the penalty for impatience has been death for decades and they seem to be fine with it. Don't see how railway crossings change anything in this equation.
I don't know of any other country has a similar problem with level crossings... certainly none of the developed ones. The simple fact is, if the red lights are flashing and the barrier is down, don't cross the tracks. Easy, no?
If drivers are getting impatient and ignoring the barriers, bells and flashing lights that's not a problem with the railways, that's a problem with piss poor driver training and a culture of utter entitlement.
As you mentioned, the price of fucking around with train crossings is
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Key to success (Score:5, Informative)
205 MPH is 330 KPH, which is faster than any other regularly operating service AFAIK. The Japanese trains are certified for continual operation that fast, but most of them run around 270 KPH due to noise concerns. The French TGV operates regularly at 320 KPH.
We know how to build trains that go faster, and Japan has its maglev under construction which will start at 600 KPH and go up from there. The issue is noise, especially when exiting tunnels. Most of the maglev line will be tunnels, so it only needs to slow down as it exits them. I'm no expert on Texas geography but a quick look at the maps suggests that Texas might be able to locate the track away from populated areas and add some sound dampening.
When you look at the Shinkansen in Japan, it's a great way to travel. They come every 15 minutes, they are comfortable, and the pricing is competitive with driving on toll highways. Of course public transport is joined up, so when you get off you can get right onto a local train or bus. They have car hire places at the stations too.
They make a good alternative to short haul flights too.
Re: (Score:3)
I was thinking of the 400 kph model. It's still on wheels, not talking about maglev which still has a few 'technical innovation goes here' spots in the implementation technology. I mean, the maglev test trains actually do run, the cake just isn't done baking so to speak.
California made a big mistake by not partnering with Nevada to start with a (greater)Los Angeles - Las Vegas HSR. No reservation required, get to vegas/back from vegas in an hour could be a real popular travel choice, and made reality at a r
Re: (Score:2)
What is left to do with the maglev trains? Japan has been running them on the test track, with passengers, for some years now. The design is solid and seems to be reliable.
Wheeled trains have other issues above ~320 KPH. It becomes increasingly difficult to dampen vibrations in the bogies, and wear on the track increases. The pantographs are a problem too, with more wear and more noise. The linear shinkansen is powered by induction so there is no contact with anything.
Re:Key to success (Score:4, Informative)
TGV technology is used in many other countries, for example Eurostar between UK, France, Belgium, and the Netherlands.
Re: (Score:2)
It's still on wheels, not talking about maglev which still has a few 'technical innovation goes here' spots in the implementation technology.
Just lol.
We have them since decades. I guess the Shanghai - Peking connection is FAR over then ten years old. German technology developed in the 1970s!! Oh, I checked: it was taken into operation 2002. But only 30km long. Currently they are building (or still planning?) a 1000km long one.
Re: (Score:2)
"ICE 3 trains operate at the national maximum high-speed railways track speed of 320km/h in Germany, but have pipped their competition in this list due to the fact that the class 403 is authorised to run at speeds of 330km/h [railway-technology.com] on the high-speed line between Frankfurt and Cologne to overcome delays."
Re:Key to success (Score:4, Informative)
Those are maximum theoretical speeds, but in daily operation Japanese shinkansen are limited to 320 KPH and only on part of the line. They mostly operate at a maximum of 270 KPH. The main limiting factor is noise.
The new maglev shinkansen will operate at 600 KPH initially, but that is expected to rise. Noise is less of an issue because over 90% of the track between Tokyo and Osaka will be tunnels under mountains. It just has to slow down before exiting the tunnel, or the shockwave is like a bullet leaving the barrel of a gun.
Re: (Score:2)
The French TGV holds the "train with wheels" record at about 574km/h.
That speed is absolutely impractical for cruising though. So cruising is done at about 320km/h.
Now Maglevs are a different story, but they require a completely new infrastructure. (High speed trains can go on 100+ year old tracks. Slowly, but they can...)
Re: (Score:2)
ps, 205mph? Setting the bar a little low aren't we?
Hey, the bullhorn up front won't stay on if you go much faster
Re: (Score:3)
Not to mention the truck nuts in the back. This is Texas, after all.
Re: (Score:2)
And look at for example the Eurostar. It is OK for it to run "slow" alongside the RER for for the last few km into central Paris.
But note that "slow" is about 180km/h (110mph). Most of the route is 320km/h (200mph).
Re:Key to success (Score:4, Informative)
A requirement for federal funding was that it be constructed in segments that each have "independent utility" meaning that the segment can be used by other operators if the HSR line isn't completed. So at the very least the money we are spending will get freight trains out of the way of cars.
But yes, this kind of risk reduction practically invites people who oppose or don't understand HSR to call it a "train to nowhere". The problem with HSR in the USA is and has always been misinformation [wired.com] like that.
Re: (Score:3)
California High Speed Rail did EXACTLY the job it was meant to do, lining the pocket of the pocket of the right people. Diane Feinstein's husband made many millions out of the project.
Betteridge's law of headlines. (Score:2)
Ok so in all seriousness they need to look at what California did, and do the opposite. For starters, make the destinations somewhere important in the actual city, not "train to nowhere" like in Cal. The "the plebes will happily take the train to Modesto because of the carbon footprint it saves" approach will not actually sell train tickets. Connect to football stadiums and it will probably be profitable once the logo rights are sold, before passengers even start riding. Onboard Longhorn network or ESPN pay-per-view or something would probably help.
Next, hire actual transportation experts to do the planning, not politician's friends who line up at the trough to start chomping on political doleouts. And when people bring up objections and problems, try to resolve it instead of just bulldozing over them. (And then when the project implodes, go around saying it was the fault of all those naysayers, and oh yeah also they were kinda right about all the problems, but it was their fault for not convincing us they were on our side)
Lets see did I miss anything? Oh yeah, don't spend money until you meet the conditions for spending that money, there will be less political favors to call in to keep the legal sharks at bay.
ps, 205mph? Setting the bar a little low aren't we?
200 MPH is quite fast for a train. In fact after that you start to run into a lot of difficulties with aerodynamic and it takes more power just to overcome air resistance (often more than it's worth). The faster you go, the more energy you require to move the mass. Rails need to be rated for it and rigorously maintained and there's the safety issu
Re: (Score:2)
This probably isn't going to happen with Houston and Dallas, TX....I mean, that would involve tearing down a LOT of buildings and highway structures that make up and surround down town...these are very large sprawling cities, and that's not even taking into consideration the large already filled to the brim suburbs surrounding them.
These are extremely large, developed cities....so, at best the trains' endpoints will be at more or less city edges. But that's likely no
Re: (Score:2)
Ok so in all seriousness they need to look at what California did, and do the opposite.
Re: Key to success (Score:2)
"they need to look at what California did, and do the opposite"
Too late. What California did was the same thing the rest of the nation did, allow a conspiracy to destroy rail travel, then realize over 50 years later that the rail was necessary. We had not only functioning but PROFITABLE rail networks in the bay area and socal and allowed car, tire, and oil companies to buy them up and shut them down, scrapping the engines and literally burning the rail cars to ensure no one could use them elsewhere.
Now we c
Re: (Score:2)
A train system for football fans? lol
What you need is to go from city center to center and then you have a local system to take you from there. This is what cities with established train systems do. I've taken the high speed systems in China and France and have seen what they can do.
"in the right circumstances." (Score:4, Informative)
which being translated means: 'I'm sure ecowarriors will do the right thing, but I'm sticking to my car'.
To be fair, the European experience is that the 200 mile range is the sweet spot for high speed train travel being popular; the London to Manchester route is a nice earner for its operator, for example. However be warned by the horrendous price rise of the HS2 project which was first priced at £35bn and is now testing the £100bn barrier.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk... [theguardian.com]
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/bus... [bbc.co.uk]
Re: "in the right circumstances." (Score:5, Interesting)
But you get crap like this:
"Ministers have admitted an extra £800m is needed due to more asbestos being discovered and the complexities of bringing the railway into a new hub station at London Euston. "
That is of course being blamed on HS2 because they're the ones that happened to notice it. Thing is, sooner or later someone would have had to pay (and probably sooner since Euston is a shit station due for redevelopment anyway).
People don't really get how expensive infrastructure is and the knockon effects of it and lack of investment previous investment. If investment had been well done before then we'd already have all the new, better signalling tech that HS2 needs. We'd also already have the new stations for the additional needed capacity, but don't have. Instead the development of integrating it into the network and the trains and the retrofitting onto any train using the line and building all the additional station capacity is also being blamed on HS2.
HS2 is simply the first point at which the creaking and massively overstretched existing infrastructure finally gave way.
HS2 is basically the cost of HS2 plus a fuckton of upgrading and infrastructure improvements on the surround and ancillary systems that ought to have been done a decade ago.
As a result, the cost of going 0-1 is much higher than 1-2. Naturally the 1-2 line has been cut so we only get the 0-1 so the cost of the integration work, new trains, etc etc is amortised over the minimum amount of track possible pushing the price per mile up further. Note that this is basically a disease of the British establishment: do all the most expensive work to prove the point and then give up because it's "too expensive" thereby minimizing the value for money to the greatest extend possible.
But also, yeah, it's going to be more expensive than France or German. The UK is smaller and there's basically nowhere they can put a line which doesn't disturb stuff so everything has to be built with mitigations for that. Something I note that is much less heavily applied to the massive and incredibly noisy motorways ploughing through the countryside. So, as always anything other than cars is forced to pay the for the full externalised costs, while cars get another bigass subsidy.
There's a fair shitshow in HS2 itself. There's also a massive shitshow in the media and planning by lumping 20 years of missing infrastructure improvements on the project that serves as the impetus. Those upgrades are needed with or without HS2 and should have been done anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Care to give those of out outside of EU a clue as to WTF "HS2" is?
I read this and first thought was Hydrogen Sulfide....
Re: (Score:2)
Care to give those of out outside of EU a clue as to WTF "HS2" is?
I'm not in the EU and neither is HS2.
If you want to know, read the post which I was replying to that was about HS2.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the post you were replying to had this:
HS2 (Score:2)
It's a new railway from London to Manchester and, possibly, Leeds. I'd intended that the reference to that route in the previous sentence would tip off those who are deprived of being resident on this sceptred isle, but I agree it wasn't clear enough!
HS2 is in England (Score:2)
It's a new railway from London to Manchester and, possibly, Leeds. I'd intended that the reference to that route in the previous sentence would tip off those who are deprived of being resident on this sceptred isle, but I agree it wasn't clear enough!
'“This royal throne of kings, this scepter’d isle,
This earth of majesty, this seat of Mars,
This other Eden, demi-paradise,
This fortress built by Nature for herself
Against infection and the hand of war,
This happy breed of men, this little world,
This
How it works (Score:2)
This from a retired civil engineer friend of mine. The method is that the design is done and priced on the assumption that EVERYTHING will work correctly; no unpleasant surprises, contingencies etc. The resultant price is presented to the decision maker - along with lots of other possible projects, all, of course, priced on the same basis in order to avoid scaring the politicians. Then, when it's agreed, all of a sudden a steady flow of price increases emerge as if by magic when allowances for risks are fac
Dragging US rail into the last decade.... (Score:2)
..well it's better than the last century at least ...
If you believe hat... (Score:4)
They've nattered about this, in various forms, for literally decades. Not gonna happen. If for no other reason than the cities are not set up for it.
First, you have to drive to the trsin station. Then you take tje train and arrive...where? Probably on the outskirts. From there, you're likely an hour's drive from wherever you actually need to be.
Re: (Score:2)
It's been tried in other states. The engineering problems combine, poorly, with the political problems of implementing the solutions, such as laying long, straight tracks through the destination cities and keeping it nearly straight for enough distance for the maximum speed to matter. The Japanese have managed it, but their society is different in a number of ways.
Re: (Score:2)
Having lived in Dallas, I can't really see something like this being viable. DFW is very spread-out and suburban. The same is true of Houston. There are niche cases where this might be better than just driving the 3.5 hours on I-45 or dealing with the hassle of the airport, but it's hard to imagine that there'll be a lot of people using this regularly.
High speed rail works in other countries for two reasons. The first is that other countries heavily tax automobiles. The second is that other countries h
Re: (Score:3)
That would be the best way to operate passenger rail in the USA. Advantages:
You don't have to spend time looking for parking.
You don't have to pay for parking.
You don't have to get from parking to trackside
If you have bags, they're in the trunk, so you don't have to get there an hour early to give them time to handle the bag. (True story - got to train station in DC about 1/2 hr before train left on Thursday due to several unfortunate erroneous turns on the way, checked bag to Chicago, overnight to Chicag
Re: (Score:3)
FWIW, we have a couple of "car ferries" in Switzerland. In our case, they're for going through mountain tunnels, but there's no reason they wouldn't work elsewhere. As the parent comment points out, there would be a lot of practical advantages in the case of a city-city link in the US. However, there is one big disadvantage: passenger density. You don't get a lot of people onto a car ferry, so the ticket price has to be correspondingly higher.
They say 205mph, which is maybe 3x the speed of driving. But th
Re: (Score:2)
My brother would take the Amtrack "Express" from DC to Boston and he said it was a million stops. Everyone wanted the train to stop at their house like you said.
Re: (Score:2)
My brother would take the Amtrack "Express" from DC to Boston and he said it was a million stops. Everyone wanted the train to stop at their house like you said.
And that's one of the many reasons why the HSR in California costs so DANG MUCH.
Every major voting constituency along the line wants to have a stop on the HSR before they will commit to locally support it.
And let's not forget that CAHSR has had land acquisition issues...because they did not survey the route first...because the local politicos were all wrangling for a stop on the HSR...and because some people just did not want to sell.
And I heard through well-place friends out in Cali that CAHSR came very cl
The joy of democracy (Score:2)
Such a helpful way to run a country!
Re: (Score:2)
This is how the UK/France Channel Tunnel trains work - 99% in tunnels under the sea
They also have conventional passenger carriages, as there are high speed rain interconnects at either end
It's only 35 miles long, and only run at 100mph, rather than the possible 120mph due to safety concerns in the tunnels - but a viable solution for a track with nominally only two stations
Re: How about car transport? (Score:3)
That is done in Europe in various cases but it's a complex issue. You can only do it efficiently with tiny little cars that can be loaded sideways. Look at how many f150s you can put on railcars... Not many.
Re: (Score:2)
I've thought about this but you'd be looking at very long boarding/unloading times and so far less runs per day. You aren't just loading one big ship, you have to load lots of individual train cars and you'd have to do it from the side since you can't get access to their rears without uncoupling them. You'd also need much longer trains to handle lots of vehicles and you can't have people sitting in the vehicles so you'd still need the passenger cars.
American pork-barrelling (Score:5, Interesting)
The Las Vegas subway and the SoCal rail-link aren't going well: Most of the problems being, where to put the damn thing and being unable to put stations in the high-traffic areas that need them.
Then there's American pork-barrelling: Politicians putting their own country over a cannon barrel, ballooning of costs and scope-creep. It means all infrastructure is undersized and behind schedule.
Re: (Score:2)
The Las Vegas subway and the SoCal rail-link aren't going well: Most of the problems being, where to put the damn thing and being unable to put stations in the high-traffic areas that need them.
Then there's American pork-barrelling: Politicians putting their own country over a cannon barrel, ballooning of costs and scope-creep. It means all infrastructure is undersized and behind schedule.
Sadly Europe is not immune to this, see the UK's horrendous HS2. Good idea, terrible execution and a government that's been giving sweetheart deals to it's donors for the last 15 years.
TX shouldn't get any federal taxpayer money, ever. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, they're just getting BACK their own tax money the Feds take from them to redistribute....
Any state that didn't try to get some of their money back would be stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
Socialism is the peoples control of the means of production, sometimes through government, sometimes not. Common socialist businesses includes Credit Unions, Co-op's as well as other worker owned businesses. I get a vote like every other member in the Credit Union and the Co-op I belong to.
Who the hell wants the government too involved in running businesses.
Iâ(TM)d ride it (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
An hour and 11 minutes to fly? Plus getting to the airport, plus parking, plus check-in, plus TSA, plus arriving early at the gate, plus the time getting a taxi/rental at the other end. Possibly plus luggage.
How long does it take you, door to door?
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect this supertrain will have all the same delays and inconveniences.
Mainly ... (Score:2)
American city planners have been drawn to the idea of high-speed railways for decades, but have repeatedly fallen short of getting them truly on track due to a host of issues, including funding, political pushback, and cultural hurdles.
Plus the minor little issue that the US isn't Japan. Or like Japan, in, er, any way at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you implying that only Japan has high speed rail? Oh you dear sweet child.
This will happen when? (Score:5, Interesting)
There is exactly zero chance in this happening in Texas anytime soon. Texas is 98% private property, so construction of the track would have to be either a) along public roads, b) along existing railroad lines, or c) on private property through eminent domain. None of these alternatives are likely. Add in the fact that Dallas and Houston are both "blue" cities, and you'll be hard pressed for the current state government to do something to make life better for the "libs" in those two cities.
Re: (Score:2)
You'd be hard pressed to get the current state government to do anything for any of is people. "We're a Christian nation goddamn it, we don't have time for sympathy or empathy!"
California (Score:4, Informative)
If Texas pulls this off we are going to look bad. Newsom, you reading this?
My train (Score:2)
And I could get a 205 MPH bullet train zipping between my house and the storage building in my back yard. Yeah, riiiiiight.....
Complete waste of money (Score:5, Interesting)
As someone who lives in the Dallas area:
Houston is a short enough drive that it's almost always cheaper/faster/more convenient to make the drive and have my own car with me when I get there. Given the size and traffic of both cities, by the time I get from my house to the train station, I could be 1/4 of the way there already. You might eat up some of the air traffic between the two cities, but I doubt drivers would switch.
Now, if you built an auto-train (not even high speed) in the median of I-45, I would 100% use it every single time. For something like that, you could use a custom wide guage, which would let you park across the train cars instead of along it, meaning cars could get on and off at stations like people on a commuter train. You could do this for most interstate highways and they'd probably always be packed to capacity.
They never mention cost (Score:4, Insightful)
The only US high speed rail project currently is California's LA-SF route. It's currently estimated to cost $35 billion to go 380 miles, or $92,000,000 per mile.
Lets assume Texas can build it for one third the cost. Unlikely, but we'll assume it anyway, $30,000,000 per mile. The proposed 240 mile route should cost $7.2 billion.
They expect 13,000,000 people to ride it by 2050. This puts the amount of the ticket price needed to cover construction costs by 2050 at $553 per ticket. This does not include any operational expenses until then, this is just to pay back construction costs. The actual ticket price needed to break even including operations would be higher. A $600 ticket would equate to operational costs of $26,000,000 per year, which seems fairly low for fuel, maintenance, salaries, supplies, etc.
Meanwhile, you can walk into the airport today and buy a plane ticket leaving today for the same route for $200. While some people may pay more for environmental reasons, I don't think there are many that will pay 3 times as much consistently.
For the construction costs to equal the same plane ticket, the entire route would have to be built for $2.6 billion, or 11% of the cost per mile as the California high speed rail project. While the land is cheaper and it is a much flatter route, there's no way this is a realistic goal. And again, no operational expenses included in the ticket price.
The $25 ticket some people are fantasizing about would require construction costs to be just $325,000,000, or 1.5% the costs of the California project. Again, assuming operations are free. I would be as likely to ride on this as I would on a 787 copy selling for $3.5 million when Boeing charges $239 million. I don't want to be on it when the corners they shouldn't have cut are discovered.
They did a survey where "The overwhelming majority of surveyed Texan Travelers (over 85%) said they would use the train in the right circumstances". They do not define what these "right circumstances" entail, but I'm fairly sure it's not $600 per trip. The "right circumstances" in the survey were probably a $25 train leaving every 10 minutes from a station within walking distance of their house. I doubt that would be a 2 digit number if they asked with realistic circumstances instead of the "right" ones.
High speed rail makes sense in a lot of places, but there are two factors that make it difficult to justify here - The USA is enormous so train routes between cities can be very long, and the we already has an extensive high speed transportation network - 600 large airports and 15,000 small ones, dozens of airlines including the world's 3 larges, infrastructure at the departure and destination points already built. Airports are cheaper to build than train routes, and doing so immediately connects you to every other airport in the world, instead of just two cities. The competition already exists, is extensive and relatively cheap.
And it's not just the airlines, the US also has the most extensive road network in the world, and the vast majority are paved. The interstate network is an underappreciated gem - I don't think there are many roads (and possibly none) in the world outside the US where you can sustain 60+ mph (100+kph) continuously for 1,000 miles (1600 km) without a border, traffic signal or stop sign, stopping only for fuel. The US has 12 interstates that long, 5 are over twice that distance, and I-90 is 3 times as long. And they are all connected, so you could just continuously drive in a huge 48,000 mile (77,000 km) loop over all of them. And these are only about 25% of highways here. Note that the proposed route "could" travel the 240 miles in 90 minutes - an average of 160mph. The speed limit between Houston and Dallas is 80mph, driving takes 2 hours longer. Once you factor driving to the train station and renting a car at your destination, that dwindles to probably a one hour difference if they hit their target average speed. Assuming $5/gallon gas (higher than Texas' highest average pri
Re: (Score:2)
Meanwhile, you can walk into the airport today and buy a plane ticket leaving today for the same route for $200. While some people may pay more for environmental reasons, I don't think there are many that will pay 3 times as much consistently.
For the construction costs to equal the same plane ticket, the entire route would have to be built for $2.6 billion, or 11% of the cost per mile as the California high speed rail project. While the land is cheaper and it is a much flatter route, there's no way this is a realistic goal. And again, no operational expenses included in the ticket price.
The $25 ticket some people are fantasizing about would require construction costs to be just $325,000,000, or 1.5% the costs of the California project
Also, plane/train tickets are *per person*, plus luggage (sometimes), transit to station, parking, etc. Driving to Houston is about $50 in gas one way for an entire family and all of their luggage.
Re: (Score:3)
FWIW, construction costs for high speed rail in China are about the cheapest in the world at $17-21 million per km, the proposed route would cost between $6.5-$8.1 billion if built in China. So my estimates for construction costs are much lower than reality in Texas, meaning tickets need to be well over $600 just to pay back construction costs.
Re: (Score:2)
*construction costs for high speed rail in china were $17-21 million per km nine years ago. It's higher now.
https://www.worldbank.org/en/n... [worldbank.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Another issue is that the density of development around and between cities in the Eastern US means that you are either buying up very expensive land via eminent domain or building on or under major highways, also very expensive.
>Once you factor driving to the train station and renting a car at your destination, that dwindles to probably a one hour difference if they hit their target average speed.
This is a big point. It is the old "last mile" issue. You still need a car to do anything once you arrive a
Re: (Score:3)
They expect 13,000,000 people to ride it by 2050. This puts the amount of the ticket price needed to cover construction costs by 2050 at $553 per ticket.
It's somewhat unfortunate that most of your post is based on a misunderstanding of the quoted figures (and / or an incorrect calculation - I honestly have no idea how you arrived at that $553 figure). When it says "Ultimately, the L.E.K study concludes that this project’s ridership is anticipated to ramp up to over 6 million passengers by 2029 and 13 million by 2050" they're talking about passenger numbers per year not total passenger numbers by that date.
Sheesh!
(And I mean, did you really think that
Herb mus be spinning in his grave (Score:2)
Couple of issues... (Score:2)
1) Dallas and Houston are horribly hot and humid in the summer. Unless the train platform is air conditioned I don't see many people willing to stand and sweat waiting for the train.
2) Texans love their trucks. They are not going to give them up to ride public transportation.
3) Once you arrive at the destination, how do you cover the last mile or two? Uber/taxi/rental car? Doesn't sound very convenient.
'Texas Could' (Score:2)
But definitely won't.
330 kph? (Score:2)
Re:Unamerican (Score:4, Insightful)
This clearly is a slap in the face to everything Texas. It does not burn enough oil and does not pollute enough. Even worse it keeps people out of cars so they are not using oil and polluting.
It's a non-starter. (Pun intended.)
Re: (Score:2)
That is fixable: just use the original TGV design [0].
Essentially the French mounted a jet engine on a train, and made it work. It even burned kerosene. Then the 1970s and oil shocks came about, and it was redesigned to be electric.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]